Author
Topic: 40 2.8 with extension tubes (Read 6079 times)

I was just wondering if anybody has tried out the 40 2.8 with extension tubes. Given its very small design, I would think this would give a greater minimum working distance since even with the extension tubes it wouldn't stick out as far as some other lenses.

I'm shooting a wedding in a couple weeks and am not planning to rent a macro for it. I just shot a wedding on Saturday and only used the 100 IS L for a few shots of the ring so I can't really justify renting a macro just for that little. I have the 24 105 and am renting the tamron 24 70 as well in case anybody has any input on if those would work better with extension tubes (I would think not). I also have been wanting to try out the canon 35 1.4 and own the canon 35 2.0 if anybody has tried it on those as well. Thanks.

The 40mm already has a hig magnification, so cropping the image might work just fine.Here is a image of a petunia that I snapped the first day I owned the lens. I could easily crop this and still have a sharp image.

Yeah I rented one this past weekend and it did seem to focus fairly close. Although the 35 2.0 I have is capable of focusing even closer. I'm looking for higher magnification than can be offered by the lens itself. I don't currently have any extension tubes or else I would of done some experimenting with that while I had the lens so sounds like I'm going to try out the 40 again and this time rent some extension tubes as well. Pretty much as expensive as renting a macro this time around but long term if I decide to buy it'll be cheaper and work on all my lenses.

look at a set of the kenko extension tubes they are cheap there is a 36mm tube in that set too, i'll see if i can try it out tonight and post up for you

A Kenko 1.4X TC might also do the trick, and if so, would be easier to use than extension tubes and manual focus. Some can get AF with a extension tube, but figure on focusing by moving the camera towards or away from the subject by using a focus rail. Rent that as well.

@Brian, I see that you have a 50 f1.8. I also have one and have used it with the Kenko extension tubes with good results. If have the $ I would say just buy the set of tubes from Kenko (about $200). If you are going to rent I would recommend going with a 12mm tube if you are shooting wedding ring macros. Hope this helps. Good luck.

@Brian, I see that you have a 50 f1.8. I also have one and have used it with the Kenko extension tubes with good results. If have the $ I would say just buy the set of tubes from Kenko (about $200). If you are going to rent I would recommend going with a 12mm tube if you are shooting wedding ring macros. Hope this helps. Good luck.

Thanks everyone. I'm renting 40 2.8 again and the Kenko extension tubes. We'll see how we go. @Mt Spokane, I have contemplated using a 1.4 TC or close up lens with the 70-200 IS II but decided to go this way based on some back and forth with Roger over at Lensrentals.

I would like to know how the 40 w extension tubes went. I have the 25 and 12mm canon tubes and i am considering the shorty 40 with tube for ring macros at weddings. Anyone else play around with this? I would like some non-cropped images posted if possible. I really want to see whats possible. It was tricky using the 25mm on the 85L this weekend, forget the 12mm, you can't get close enough. I used to use the 12 with my 50L for great ring shots but i sold the 50L.Please oh please someone bring somethin to the table.

I would like to know how the 40 w extension tubes went. I have the 25 and 12mm canon tubes and i am considering the shorty 40 with tube for ring macros at weddings. Anyone else play around with this? I would like some non-cropped images posted if possible. I really want to see whats possible. It was tricky using the 25mm on the 85L this weekend, forget the 12mm, you can't get close enough. I used to use the 12 with my 50L for great ring shots but i sold the 50L.Please oh please someone bring somethin to the table.

With it on sale for $150, its a bargain. Now that we have the 24-70 f/4L coming which is virtually a macro with hybrid IS, and, If you are using flash setups for weddings, it might be a usable wedding lens as well.

Logged

canon rumors FORUM

I ordered one but I am researching it being used with tubes, kinda hard to find but i found a couple links. It looks like it just might be perfect. I sold ,y 24-70 2.8 and my 5d among others to get the 85L II and it did nicely at this weekends wedding. Anyway that said i am saying i gave up the 24-70 lens and shot the entire wedding with 2 primes and it was very good. First wedding i havent pulled the 70-200 out. If the 35F2 focusses fast i may get that for sports finish line shots but we'll see.here is one linkhttp://www.andrewsgibson.com/blog/2012/08/up-close-with-canons-40mm-pancake-lens/

I would like to know how the 40 w extension tubes went. I have the 25 and 12mm canon tubes and i am considering the shorty 40 with tube for ring macros at weddings. ...Please oh please someone bring somethin to the table.

Well, Bosman, since you asked so nicely...

I grabbed a shot with the 1D X, Extension Tube EF 25 II, and EF 40mm f/2.8 'pancake'. My wife's sparkly diamond marquis with smaller marquis sapphires surrounding it is on her finger, and she's asleep, so you'll have to make due with my wedding band. It's not unblemished and new like the ones you'll be shooting, since it's been on my finger for a few months shy of 20 years. But there are only two wedding rings in the house, so this is what you're getting...

Two shots, first is the full frame, uncropped image reduced to 800 pixles wide, second is an 800 pixel wide 100% crop. Shot at 1/40 s, f/11, ISO 400. Straight conversion with DPP, only adjustment was to the WB (I cooled it off a little - I should know better than to shoot tungsten light on a red throw pillow with AWB, the original looked a little Tolkien-esque, One Ring To Rule Them All...).

In terms of dimensions, the band measures 7/8" diameter. The shot was at the MFD of the lens, and the working distance (front element to wedding ring) was ~2.25".